If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

B) I don't see it that way, and I think that if you insist on such, then you aren't considering the way these races have had their cultures presented in the game's past.

Yes, the core races are nuanced people, but that's because the gods they worship are also a nuanced people. There's no singular, overarching alignment that the human pantheon exhibits. They've got good deities, evil deities and everything in between. So when you have characters that fill a wide range of alignments and cultural mentalities, it makes sense.

Monsters, on the other hand, were created by pantheons who are almost utterly devoted to the service of evil. Monstrous deities who espouse anything close to neutrality or goodness are an exception to the norm; and more often than not, those who turn to these deities for worship are killed on sight by the majority of their fellow monsters. This stands to reason that monsters who abandon their evil ways would be too scarce to gain any kind of significant momentum in monster society as a whole, and would instead be living as outcasts, in constant fear of being labeled as a heretic by their own kind.

It’s difficult to overstate how backwards the idea that people are good/evil/Lawful/Chaotic because the deities they worship are good/evil/Lawful/Chaotic is. Mortal beings aren’t like Outsiders. They have free will, and will decide to worship the deities that suit their sensibilities, not the other way around.

It would be like an Elf turning their back on whoever the elven gods are in your setting, and swearing themselves to Moradin / Torag as they adopt a life in accordance with Dwarven customs. It's not impossible, obviously, but that Elf is going to need a damn good backstory to explain why that happened, or else they're just going to come across as gimmicky for the sake of being unique.

Why on earth would that need special backstory justification? “My elf character was raised by dwarves.” “My character grew up in a community of elves that had very strong positive relations with a neighboring dwarven clanhold, and it was common in my villains for people to pay homage to both pantheons.” “My character never really fit in with other elves, and the elves gods just never really resonated with her. The first time she heard a dwarven acolyte speak of Moradin, it was a revelation, and she soon adopted the dwarven gods as her own.” It’s trivially simple to justify.

Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

2 likes

Comment

It’s difficult to overstate how backwards the idea that people are good/evil/Lawful/Chaotic because the deities they worship are good/evil/Lawful/Chaotic is. Mortal beings aren’t like Outsiders. They have free will, and will decide to worship the deities that suit their sensibilities, not the other way around.

Until you consider the fact that the gods are actively trying to amass more worshipers in order to increase their power. Among them, the aforementioned evil deities attempt to do this obsessively. Sure, direct conflict between the gods may be frowned upon, out of fear of destroying the cosmos, but that does not prevent them from sending forth their champions and clerics to get the job done for them. Or using their divine power to threaten an entire community with destruction if they don't purge the disinters from their ranks.

The problem I see with your side of the argument, is you're placing too much stock on real world symbolism, and not appreciating the fantasy setting for what it is. An alternate reality that is NOT beholden to the same functionalities as the one in which we live.

I do not, nor will I ever perceive the monster races as different offshoots of humanity. I hate humanity, and I love the monster races specifically because they are something different. Making them more like humans diminishes the thing that makes them special to me.

Now while I'm not completely opposed to the idea of playing a monster who aligns themselves with the good, or neutral side of things, I am going to make sure that nobody else in the story forgets that they are, in fact, a monster, and will behave as such from time to time. That friendly little Goblin that recently joined up with the party may not be killing random people for shits and giggles. But if an enemy does end up picking a fight with the group, that Goblin's going to fly into crazy slasher mode as they proceed to stab their assailant 37 times in the chest!

Comment

Until you consider the fact that the gods are actively trying to amass more worshipers in order to increase their power. Among them, the aforementioned evil deities attempt to do this obsessively. Sure, direct conflict between the gods may be frowned upon, out of fear of destroying the cosmos, but that does not prevent them from sending forth their champions and clerics to get the job done for them. Or using their divine power to threaten an entire community with destruction if they don't purge the disinters from their ranks.

I don't see how that's a counter-argument. Sapient individuals still decide which gods to devote themselves (or not) based on what those gods espouse. And yeah, of course evil deities are going to use all manner of dirty tricks to gain more devotees - they kinda have to, because most rational actors aren't going to willingly devote themselves to evil. So, yeah, threats, temptation, brainwashing, these are all tactics of the evil deities.

The problem I see with your side of the argument, is you're placing too much stock on real world symbolism, and not appreciating the fantasy setting for what it is. An alternate reality that is NOT beholden to the same functionalities as the one in which we live.

I do not, nor will I ever perceive the monster races as different offshoots of humanity. I hate humanity, and I love the monster races specifically because they are something different. Making them more like humans diminishes the thing that makes them special to me.

I don't think monsters being offshoots of humanity has ever been one of my talking points. Why would monsters having free will need to necessarily mean they are offshoots of humanity?

Now while I'm not completely opposed to the idea of playing a monster who aligns themselves with the good, or neutral side of things, I am going to make sure that nobody else in the story forgets that they are, in fact, a monster, and will behave as such from time to time. That friendly little Goblin that recently joined up with the party may not be killing random people for shits and giggles. But if an enemy does end up picking a fight with the group, that Goblin's going to fly into crazy slasher mode as they proceed to stab their assailant 37 times in the chest!

I don't disagree, nor do I see how this runs counter to my position in any way.

Comment

Alignment can change during play as a character’s beliefs change, or as you realize that your character’s actions reflect a different alignment than the one on your character sheet. In most cases, you can just change their alignment and continue playing.

before going on to point out that clerics and paladinschampions who change to an alignment not allowed but their deity or oath have to atone as described in those class’s entries. But crucially, it seems to be RAW that alignment changes are primarily a player decision. If you want to explore the story of playing the cleric who falls from their god’s favor, you’re free to change your own alignment, though atonement will entail more than just deciding you’re ready to switch your alignment back.

Of course, the previous page does say that the GM is the arbiter of questions about how specific actions might affect your character’s alignment. So, it does seem within the DM’s power as arbiter of such questions to say that a given act definitely would or definitely would not merit an alignment shift. But taken together, these statements still suggest to me that it’s primarily up to the player what alignment their character is, with the GM’s role being to settle uncertainty, rather than to dictate PC alignment.

I don’t know if it’s necessarily RAI, but if it is, it’s quite a surprise to see coming from Paizo. I think I like it. I am generally a “only you can decide what your character thinks, feels, or does, barring magical control” kind of GM, so this jives with me pretty well.

Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

Comment

before going on to point out that clerics and paladinschampions who change to an alignment not allowed but their deity or oath have to atone as described in those class’s entries. But crucially, it seems to be RAW that alignment changes are primarily a player decision. If you want to explore the story of playing the cleric who falls from their god’s favor, you’re free to change your own alignment, though atonement will entail more than just deciding you’re ready to switch your alignment back.

I was watching a video talking about the Champion class, and they pointed out a very specific phrase written in the book.

"Champions who follow the Tenets of Good" - Which would seem to indicate that there will eventually be a Tenets of Evil, or Tenets of Neutrality coming in the future.

Comment

Given that one of the signature features of their campaign setting is an order of Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil divine knights, is that really a surprise?

Probably not. But remember that I knew next to nothing about Pathfinder until very recently, when I started playing Kingmaker. My knowledge of the setting is nowhere near as in depth as my knowledge of D&D.

On another note, if somebody doesn't make a Goblin Mutagenist based on The Brain, I will be very disappointed with the nerd community.

Comment

I was trying to create a human fighter with an elven court blade in PF2E. I had to invest some points into strength, because you can't add dexterity to damage unless you're a rogue. I feel like doing that and giving finesse weapons lower damage dice is excessive. In the end I do 1d8+2 damage, which I guess I'd have to test to see if it's enough.

That being said, the new method of generating attributes is much more intuitive than either point-buy or rolling. Of course, it removes the last vestige of relevance from the attribute/modifier split, but so it goes. I was still able to assign my attributes with minimum fuss.

After finishing that and my skills, the time came for feats. And... well. I think I'll abandon my original plan for using the human special trait to gain another fighter feat, because they're just... uninspired. I took Sudden Charge because extra mobility is good, but then I looked at the others that would work with a two-handed weapon. Neither Power Attack nor Exacting Strike look like something I particularly feel like using. They're math tricks. So I'll probably just get a good general feat.

Comment

Is there any chance we'll get other mixed-race Heritages for PF 2e? Like Half-Gnome or Two-Thirdslings? maybe even Genasi?

Also, how does that work. Is there a variant depending on which subrace your Heritage parent was from?

Well, half-elf and half-orc are technically human heritages, but the book mentions that, with DM permission, you can apply either heritage to races other than human. The half-elf heritage grants low-light vision, the elf tag, and qualifies you for elf and half-elf ancestry feats. Likewise, the half-orc heritage gives low-light vision, the orc tag, and qualifies you for orc and half-orc ancestry feats. Should be trivially easy to apply that model to any other ancestry you like. Just add the race’s vision type, tag, and ancestry feat qualification. Two-thirds would be a bit harder to work out.

Going by Willow now, or Wil for short. She/Her/Hers.

Comment

Well, half-elf and half-orc are technically human heritages, but the book mentions that, with DM permission, you can apply either heritage to races other than human. The half-elf heritage grants low-light vision, the elf tag, and qualifies you for elf and half-elf ancestry feats. Likewise, the half-orc heritage gives low-light vision, the orc tag, and qualifies you for orc and half-orc ancestry feats. Should be trivially easy to apply that model to any other ancestry you like. Just add the race’s vision type, tag, and ancestry feat qualification. Two-thirds would be a bit harder to work out.

Two-Thirdslings are just a jokey way to avoid saying half-Halflings

A god is just a monster you kneel to. - ArcaneArts, Quoting "Fall of Gods"